A digest of events, trends, issues, ideas and journalism from and about rural America, by the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, based at the University of Kentucky.
Links may expire, require subscription or go behind pay walls. Please send news and knowledge you think would be useful to al.cross@uky.edu. Follow us on Twitter @RuralJournalism

Monday, June 30, 2014

Rural vs. urban stories in New York Times contradict each other, Daily Yonder editor writes

Last week The New York Times published a story saying that six Eastern Kentucky towns were among the 10 most difficult places in the U.S. to live based on longevity of life in relation to education, income, unemployment rate,
disability rate, obesity rate and life expectancy. Tim Marema, editor of the Daily Yonder, responds to the Times story by comparing it to a similar story that appeared a few days later in the newspaper that he says contradicted the first story by coming to the conclusion that people in struggling rural areas are liabilities who need to move away, while those in struggling urban ones are assets who need to stay put.

"In a magazine piece titled 'The Problem with Eastern Kentucky,'
Annie Lowrey says mountain residents should hit the road to find better
economic opportunity," Marema writes. "She argues that safety-net and anti-poverty
programs are actually hurting the economy in the long run because they
don’t encourage mobility. But Monica Davey reports from Detroit in a Times’ news story
that the Motor City 'desperately needs to hold onto residents.' The
reason: to keep the city viable by retaining a critical mass of
population."

"The pieces are like night and day," Marema writes. "In the story on rural
Kentucky, Lowery argues that government poverty-reduction programs hurt
people by encouraging them to remain in a distressed area. From Detroit,
Davey reports on the efforts of public entities to lessen the burden of
home foreclosures and tax liens. There’s not a whiff of disagreement
from any quarter—what Detroit needs most is for people to stay where
they are."

"So why do two stories, both covering the topic of economic distress,
both dealing with migration, printed within days of each other in the
Times, focus on such different solutions to the problem?" Marema writes. "Could it have something to do with the fact that Detroit is urban and Eastern Kentucky is rural? In
Detroit, people are assets, the building blocks of a new future. In
rural Kentucky, they’re liabilities, the remnants of a failed economic
past. In Detroit, folks need to shelter in place for the betterment of all. In Kentucky, it’s long past time to load up and move on . . . If people are assets, paying for their relief is good. If people are liabilities, helping them is money down the drain."

Although Lowery does not approve of the "'trillions of dollars spent to improve the
state of the poor in the United States and promote development,'" spending that money to help those who live in cities is apparently advantageous, Marema writes. "More
than a few public dollars have flowed into Detroit in the last
generation to relieve poverty and rebuild infrastructure. But there’s
still plenty of poor people there."

Lower's Eastern Kentucky facts are accurate, and it can be a difficult place to live. Millions of rural Appalachians have, in fact moved away—and many went to Detroit, he writes. "And we’re
willing to bet the people now leaving that city include plenty of
Appalachian descendants."

"But I find her conclusion smug," he writes. "She has
cleverly figured out where to move the human pieces on the map. It is as
if East Kentuckians were not living, breathing beings capable of acting
in their own behalf. I’d love a good discussion about poverty—both rural and urban. And one about public policy and how to move
forward together as a nation. But remember, while we’re having this discussion, rural folks are standing right here. You know we can hear you, right?" (Read more)

Subscribe to daily email feed

Subscribe to Rural Blog via RSS

About The Rural Blog

This blog generally follows traditional journalistic standards. It's not about opinions, though you may read one here occasionally. It's about facts that we think will be useful to rural journalists, non-rural journalists who do rural stories, and others interested in rural issues. We don't try to be provocative, so we don't generate as many comments as most blogs with the level of traffic we have, but we certainly invite comments -- and contributions, to al.cross@uky.edu. Feel free to republish blog items, with credit to us and the original source.